Censorship, Redux

man-tape-mouth

On April 17 2012, I posted this. Now, WinteryKnight has done it again. I tried to post a comment on this article. The comment was as follows:

No one has ever argued that *all* same-sex couples make good parents; just that *some* do. Of course some gay parents do a bad job, just like some straight parents do a bad job. We shouldn’t be saying that children should be raised by straight rather than gay parents, but that they should be raised by good rather than bad parents.

It should also be noted that Mark Regnerus is very explicit to note that his study does not show causation between parents being gay and children having problems; but merely correlation. He says: “The NFSS is not a longitudinal study, and therefore cannot attempt to broach questions of causation.” and “This study cannot answer political questions about same-sex relationships and their legal legitimacy.

As for this: “Although there is much speculation that today there are large numbers of same-sex couples in the U.S. who are providing a stable, long-term parenting relationship for their children, no studies based upon large, random samples of the U.S. population have been published that show this to be true” – here’s what Regnerus himself has to say on the subject: “Today’s children of gay men and lesbian women are more apt to be “planned” (that is, by using adoption, IVF, or surrogacy) than as little as 15–20 years ago, when such children were more typically the products of heterosexual unions.

How large a part of the total of same-sex families are planned, long-term, and stable remains to be seen. But that part is getting bigger.

This comment was automatically deleted. I didn’t even see “your comment is awaiting moderation”. I can only assume that Wintery Knight is automatically discarding all my comments. How disappointing.

Over on the NOM website, I tried to post a comment on an article here. My comment was a response to another comment made by Randy E King (comment #13). His comment was this:

As my college Statistics Professor pointed out:

“Mathematics is a theory; not a fact”

So by insisting that the governing component of marriage be changed from (1) man and (1) woman to (2) consenting adults you have changed the basis for marriage from a scientific fact into a scientific theory.

Society should never build its foundational supports on theories – you might as well build them on quicksand.

I responded with this:

Randy E King said: “Society should never build its foundational supports on theories – you might as well build them on quicksand.”

Germ Theory:
the concept that all infectious and contagious diseases are caused by living microorganisms. The science of bacteriology developed after establishment of this theory. Also called pathogenic theory of medicine.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/germ+theory

Atomic Theory:
the concept that all matter is composed of submicroscopic atoms that are in turn composed of protons, electrons, and neutrons. A chemical element is identified by the number of protons in its atoms.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/atomic+theory

Kinetic Theory of Gases:
a theory that gases consist of small particles in random motion.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/kinetic+theory+of+gases

I could go on and on and on. Are these all quicksand as well?

This time, I did see the “your comment is awaiting moderation” message. However, shortly after that, my comment was gone. This can only mean that someone intentionally disapproved the comment – but why? I don’t understand why people don’t allow these types of comments. If anyone is in contact with either Wintery Knight or NOM, please ask them why my comments are not allowed. Thanks.

Tags: , , ,

9 responses to “Censorship, Redux”

  1. rowanwphillips says :

    Don’t bother with him, he emailed me and told me to stop ‘preaching my blasphemous religious beliefs’, he also said, ‘we do science here not fairy stories’ – he/she doesn’t allow comments that disagree withe his/her own and are backed up with evidence, end of.

  2. Teri Simpkins says :

    NOM has a habit of getting ridof posts or not allowing posts by people who are not pro-NOM or their cohorts. I was allowed to post a few times and since then, nothing. Not even a note from them telling me why I’m no longer allowed to post. Talked to Maggie about it because she’d writtent to me once about a comment I’d left. It’s not up to her and she won’t tell them what to do, is her story. Bottom line, be glad if any of your comments get through. They really love the preaching to the choir crowd. Y’know, the ones who love to agree with all they say.

  3. Little Man says :

    I don’t know it you are really intent on deciding for a blog which comments ‘should’ be posted and which not, or you are just talking ad hominem. The NOMblog has a real person ‘moderator’, not just an automatized computer filter which cannot determine whether the comment stays on-subject. That makes it a better blog. The same objections you raise per the NOMblog moderator can be argued about any other blog with a ‘live’ moderator. If you REALLY want to understand the NOMblog moderator’s rules for posting comment, there was a comment about this left by the moderator about a year ago, stating (some of) her rules. As you can yourself see (‘Robert’) in your filtered NOMblog comment quoted in “Censorship, Redux”, you have departed from the subject of the post. Commenting is to stay on the subject of the post, not the tangential subjects of the comments for the post. Otherwise, the moderator (a real person volunteer working 5 days a week) would have an impossible job keeping comments organized by topic, and readers would not be able to look up comments pertaining to a single subject. It is very simple to understand. I don’t defend the correctness of Randy King’s allegation in his comment, but he stayed on subject. Hope this helps. Note that your comment regarding the moderator, though off-subject, is indeed shown as a comment, probably because it is a one-liner.

    • Robert says :

      Um, no. There’s plenty of comments there that have absolutely nothing to do with the blog post, such as number 26 from LEO:

      “Rick, you blog sucks! Get a life!”.

      And number 29 from Byrd:

      “@ Robert

      Oh, I’m so sorry I missed whatever you wrote. I’m sure it was a one-of-a-kind steaming pile of nonsense that only someone like you would be capable of producing.

      Cheers!!”

      If their policy is to delete off-topic comments, why aren’t these deleted?

      • melanc says :

        Oh, a real person! I was about to close up the web page.

        ‘Robert’, i mentioned that one-liners (comments consisting of one sentence, for instance) do get posted right away on the NOMblog if its words pass the automatic word filter. I mean, it is at the bottom of my comment i put on your blog. Obviously, you have a strong logical background. Plus, my explanation was about those comments the Moderator doesn’t allow to show (for long), not about comments which do get through the Moderator. I mean, you have the same rights as owner of your blog. Like i say, stay on-subject.

        Once i decided i would help other NOMblog commentators by submitting a comment in which i wrote up how to get through the NOMblog filter, and how the Moderator ‘moderates’. Guess, what. It was not allowed to show.

        I think i gave some ideas on how to get around the automatic filters. I mean, i just learned this by trial and error – not that i wanted to be sneaky. The moderator didn’t like it, and of course, it went against her rule that i should stay on the subject of the post. Like, try a comment with the word ‘homosexual’ in it. It is going to be moderated, or at least, it used to be.

        There’s also situations where a comment goes to moderation (say, for instance, you started a new paragraph within the comment, or included some threat, but didn’t use any crude words) and the moderator is absent for some days (a volunteer, you know). In that case, you might not see your comment until 2 or 3 days later. What’s worse, when the moderator returns to moderate, she may be swamped, specially if Randy King has been at it :)

        But, of course, if you claim a comment was deleted or never shown, you could be lying. I mean, it is just logical, no offense meant. Staying on the subject is a good thing when debating a controversial, emotional issue. I have had comments deleted at NOMblog, and i don’t ask them why. I ask myself why, and then proceed to cut it down into pieces. Sometimes that works.

        Anyway, i don’t represent NOM in any way. i am probably just a thinking nuisance.

      • Robert says :

        I need to hit the sack, but I’ll have a response to this tomorrow.

      • Robert says :

        Ok, so three things to note:

        First, I’ve seen many lengthy, off-topic, or threatening posts made by NOM supporters. Post #4 in the post I linked too is a good example, so is Randy’s post which I was responding to. These are both more than one-liners, and don’t talk about NOM’s DumpStarbucks campaign (although these particular posts don’t contain threats; but then again neither did mine). So there’s some inconsistency here.

        Second, why is it their policy to delete off-topic posts in the first place? Side issues are important; especially for legal and ethical issues, which can get quite complex.

        Finally, why are we reduced to trial and error in order to figure out their comment policy? Why isn’t it posted somewhere (if it is, I can’t find it)? And yes, I’m aware that I don’t have an explicit comment policy here on my blog – that’s because I don’t really have one, other than the inferred common sense policy that 99% of all sites share. The only comments I’ll ever delete are slurs, threats, or posts that contain illegal content.

  4. melanc says :

    Sure, i’ll try to remember or check my email.

  5. melanc says :

    Second, why is it their policy to delete off-topic posts in the first place?

    Because it is their blog

    Side issues are important; especially for legal and ethical issues, which can get quite complex.

    Side-issues are important. Agreed. But what exactly is a ‘side-issue’? Is it whatever you happen to want at the moment? Side-issues are simply ORGANIZED according to a NOMblog post that starts a topic, and are closely related (at the discretion of the moderator) to the post’s main content. Your own blog does this too.

    Finally, why are we reduced to trial and error in order to figure out their comment policy?

    The same applies to YOUR blog. But the best answer is ‘economy’. Why get into a big long discussion about a comment, as if it was some kind of broken contract?

    NOMblog has a live moderator. The moderator reigns there. There’s no trial and error. It’s set: moderating is at the discretion of the moderator. If you or i don’t like it, we are not required to submit (note word submit) comments for approval.

    And yes, I’m aware that I don’t have an explicit comment policy here on my blog – that’s because I don’t really have one…

    You also do not have the comment ‘traffic’ NOMblog experiences.

    You also make up your comment policy as you go. Same thing the NOMblog volunteer moderator does. I think the moderator also takes into consideration which user has submitted interesting comments (at her discretion), and maybe she tags our user name as one which has more automatic latitude. A blog is structured by the software utilized.

    ————————

    But let’s consider your charge -> comment approval bias or prejudice by the moderator.

    We would need to be able to see all the comments submitted and all the comments approved, or a representative sample. That’s not our privilege. Gallagher doesn’t work as part of NOM staff anymore. NOMblog is going to be accused of unfair moderating whether it is true or not…

    We could ask the moderator if she is prejudiced. But i don’t think that would cut it.

    We could point to ONE or TWO comments we submitted and were not posted and accuse NOMblog of bias, unfairness and dishonesty and hypocrisy. But then, the moderator could respond your comments were:

    off-topic ‘enough’ (!)

    You use the same concept, in your own blog post regarding NOM, Obama, and Race: ‘black enough’.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 26 other followers

%d bloggers like this: